Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

MojoKid writes: The Entertainment Software Association has just released its 2014 report on the state of the video game industry (PDF), and as the title of this post suggests, there have been some significant shifts since the last report. Let's tackle the most interesting one first: Females have become the dominant gamer, claiming 52% of the pie. That's impressive, but perhaps more so is the fact that women over the age of 18 represent 36% of the game-playing population, whereas boys aged 18 and under claim a mere 17%. Statistics like these challenge the definition of "gamer." Some might say that it's a stretch to call someone who only plays mobile games a "gamer" (Candy Crush anyone?). Mental hurdle aside, the reality is that anyone who plays games, regardless of the platform, is a gamer.

As usual, they miss the measurement of "quality" and instead dumb it down to "quantity". Playing Candy Crush 5 minutes a day is not the same as playing the Xbox until 4am.

I think quantity is a perfectly acceptable metric but not as "total number of women who played a game last week" but rather"total minutes played by women last week". I would define someone who is playing games 4-6 hours a day as a gamer evenif those games only consist of candy crush, farmville, and word with friends. And as far as advertisers are concerned thecandy crush, farmville, and word with friends group is more valuable as they are exposed to alot more ads than the personplaying mario on an xbox.

I think maybe "money spent" would be a better metric. If you buy AAA titles, consoles, surround sound systems, projectors, liquid-cooled rigs with dual video cards, gaming headsets, specialized controllers, keyboards, and mice...in short, if some non-trivial percentage of your household's disposable income goes towards gaming, then you are a gamer. Does it not make economic sense to target the demographic that is spending outrageous amounts of money on this stuff. Otherwise you're chasing a very thin, long

I think marketing just sullied the word "gamer" by including people who play casual mobile games. Playing candy crush on a bus does not a gamer make. A "gamer" is someone who lives and breaths gaming, not "someone who plays games". The whole point of the term was to distinguish them from the normal populace of people who play games. If someone is playing candy crush something like 4+ hours while at home while the rest of their family feels neglected, then I think they could earn that title. But the other ma

I think marketing just sullied the word "gamer" by including people who play casual mobile games.

Well now. When Slashdot revealed shockingly that Whales Are Ecosystem Engineers [slashdot.org] ... which should have shook the very foundation of nerddom to create a backlash of indignation... as a handful of researchers casually marginalized the hard work and extreme mental discipline required to obtain a degree in Engineering to some act of mammalian gut instinct... what did we get, ~60 comments?

Sure, but if you also read the report you'll quickly notice that the demographics of "what people play" are vastly different. Women will generally stick to management/sim/etc style building. Men will stick to racing, rpg's, action games. This of course is one of the fundamental piss-off points, that the "sjw's" seem to forget.

If you're going to get pedantic about statistics, you should really get to know your friendly neighborhood Margin of Error [wikipedia.org]. Often ignored in fluff pieces, being aware of his existence is still vital.

Probably more accurate to say that there are two distinct game industries and two distinct markets. One concentrates fairly specifically on puzzle-type games, with a seeming emphasis on tetris-like or connect-four-like games with most development being done for portable devices, while the other concentrates on time-dependent action games, with some longer, multiturn strategy and other types of games too, played on more stationary, immersive platforms.

Candy crush players are not gamers anymore than people who like to watch Star Trek on occasion are Trekkies

Why did you bother to use "on occasion" for trekkies but not for gamers. I would define a gamer based on intensity.I would define someone who is playing games 4-6 hours a day as a gamer even if those games only consist of candy crush, farmville, and word with friends.

There's a bunch of different criteria you might use, such as how much they play, how many games they buy or how much money they spend, but I would define as gamers people who self-identify as gamers. I strongly doubt all the women in that data consider themselves gamers.

Really? Here is my anecdotal datem point on the subject. I have been a gamer since the Atari 2600 and NES era. I have been involved in the gaming culture since there was gaming culture (same with the computer and internet cultures as well). Thus far, I have owned and played every major Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft platform made (except the PS4 and XBone due to the still lack of games) as well as many others. My current library spans well over 500 games between consoles and PC (especially Steam). When I go

Depends what you want to get out of these stats. If you want to find out in which group you're more likely to find a gamer, if you have a same sized sample, then sure, you're right, you need to normalise it. If you want to find out who you should target when you're designing a game you want to sell to people, then no, no you don't want to normalise it.

Yes, but the frame of reference matters. The point is that, amongst the gaming population, women are a sizeable demographic. The makeup of the population at-large might explain that preponderance, but it doesn't mean the numbers are immaterial.

The obvious questions here are: how many hours, exactly, does one have to play a week to belong in this group of "gamers?" Does the type of the game being played determine if they are "gamers" or not? What if they have long stretches where they don't play at all and long stretches when they don't do much else than play?

Closer. I think for game publishers the term mostly includes people they make money off of through advertising/personal data harvesting. Your only gaming is Angry Birds while sitting on the toilet? You're still a gamer.

It's not just the spend, it's the spend compared with the cost of developing and marketing the game. A game like GTA takes many millions to make, a game like WoW takes many millions to make and millions more to keep the infrastructure up. You can make a lot of sales and still lose money. A cheap to make smartphone game can be very profitable even if people don't spend much on it.

So If I spent roughly 10-20 hours a week playing Planetside2 (MMOFPS) for the past year and a half, which was free, I'm not a gamer? No purchase involved. There are many free to play titles (wasn't Farmville that so many mentioned free also?). I don't really play any other games outside of Planetside2, but after being in 3 large outfits (clans/guilds) of several hundred active members at any time, I can tell you male to female ratio is about 50:1 if not more. The whole female gamer thing still seems like a myth.

Its no entirely a myth I know one gamer thats female, she mostly plays single player rpg's like Baldurs Gate and freemium FPS's like Team Fortress.

The way I see it, calling someone who only plays Candy Crush a gamer is like calling someone who only plays Putt Putt a golfer. As for the number of hours and the amount of dedication, they can be indicated with qualifiers like "Occasional", "Casual", or "Hardcore".

Don't underestimate the dedication of the members of your local Wii Bowling League. They've been retired for years, and have nothing else upon which to focus their attention.

Who hasn't seen an elderly woman truly distressed when she can't play her pogo games due to some technical problem?

I was talking to a woman last week who is still upset that Yahoo! dropped the Mahjong Solitaire game she liked months ago. (I provided her with many alternatives, but she insists that they're not as fun.)

They have free time. More time than even school-aged children. Their lives revolve around games in a way that the most pathetic WoW addict can only dream about. They set their schedules around their Farmville crops with more consideration than the saddest Otaku does for his Love Plus girlfriend.

They're hardcore. Those of you who think the term 'hardcore gamer' describes an important part of your identity don't even come close. Of course, they'll never describe themselves that way. Games are what they do, without question, but they don't let that define them. (They'd find it rather sad and pathetic.)

Nawh. Your qualifiers won't do it. I play a lot of one specific game. Quite a bit actually. Yet I've been called a casual player because I have no interest in exploring every nook and cranny, taking every detour and acquiring every tiny reward, and most importantly have no interest in PvP (mostly because of the attitudes).

Actually for my definition, people who spend time in any game where rewards depend on investment of time or money instead of skill and time devoted to improve it, are NOT gamers. Your WOW stats are irrelevant, your tempest high-scores definitely not.

The reality is, it matters not the bait of the hook as long as it catches the fish. What brings people into video gaming is pretty arbitrary, what keeps them their and keeps them playing is what counts. You'll find the majority of those that start with simple games on phones will end up expanding their game play to more advanced games on more advanced devices. Social networked games still have a ways to go, people quick linking their phones to play a shared game with their own view on their own screen, in

Back in the day of early video games, women did not play the 'shooter' type games that were offered then (Asteroids, Missile Defense, etc.). It wasn't until Ms. Pac Man came out that women had a game that appealed to them.

Ms. Pac Man evoked an idea in women that, (A) it was non-violent, and (B) it had a tied story to the game play. The cut-scenes in Ms. Pac Man were something to aspire to getting to.

Cut to today's modern games. There's more diversity in gameplay, more emotional involvement, more rea

Mental hurdle aside, the reality is that anyone who plays games, regardless of the platform, is a gamer.

is obviously not true.

"Gamer" is associated with people who spend most of their time playing games inside their mancave.People who play a bit of casual gaming on the go from time to time are not gamers.

Right... the basis of this article seems to be "We changed the definition of the word, but ignore that and look at our crazy numbers!!"Women used to read magazines at the doctors office, but those are always 3yrs out of date so they switched to facebook. That's gotten boring over the years so now there's Candy Crush, which is a slightly more sophisticated version of the old pocket poker or pocket baseball games of the 80s. Not to demean the activity, but comparing that to what Teenagers are doing with a PC or console is a bit of a joke.

That being said, ask me about this while my wife is around and they are the same damned thing, she spends all day "Gaming" so I should be able to play as much RoboCraft as I want to. (a plug for my current favorite game: http://robocraftgame.com/ [robocraftgame.com] )

That being said, ask me about this while my wife is around and they are the same damned thing, she spends all day "Gaming" so I should be able to play as much RoboCraft as I want to. (a plug for my current favorite game: http://robocraftgame.com/ [robocraftgame.com] )

I went to the page, first the page was covered by a "must have javascript to function" text.After enabling it for the page it also want to pull in javascript from facebook, amazonaws and google-analytics.It also have a register button covering half the page but registering doesn't appear to work unless you enable javascript for third party pages.As someone who is reluctant to register on pages at all I pretty much said nope there.

Huh? It's a steam game, just search for "Robocraft"To be honest, I just play it and don't care what the website looks like.You build robots out of what are basically legos and then put lasers on them and fight.It's free, they make their money because you can buy pre-built robots or pay to level faster.

I also suggest that clinging to that reluctance will block you from much of modern society. The isolation can be psychologically harmful over time.

That depends on whether you have a life in meatspace including meaningful quality time with loved ones.

If you do, you'll never miss the online tracking.

The principle here is that generally anything pathological, like the desire to track people without regard for their consent, requires some kind of unfulfilled need or other problem to provide fertile soil in which it can fester and grow. Otherwise it wouldn't be tolerated because what it offers in return is not tempting.

If you are a game developer, you are missing out on an untapped market. Women deal with true, real life concerning issues. To not include women in your target audience could well mean you are missing the real target. The men will follow...

My wife plays a lot of Hay Day. I don't see a lot of true, real life concerning issues there. I guess I don't smell the magic sauce that makes women playing games any different.

Identity politics has taught people to exaggerate these differences, that it's "normal" to worry about things like which demographic is doing what activity. It's just so damned useful for divide-and-conquer purposes for anything from voting to marketing. TFA is merely following what the rest of the media has done for a long time now.

If women want to play games, they will. If women don't, then they won't. To me it's as simple as that. The "magic sauce" is the bullshit concerns of politicians, media p

You're the one who's confused. There is no "mancave" involved in gaming, except for reclusive pimply-faced acne victims in Momma's basement.

Over the years "gamer" has evolved from meaning someone who played pen and paper rule-based, card, or board games to include video games, and all the sub-genres thereof. The typical portable device nowadays has far more CPU and graphics power than the 386's that ran the Doom series, never mind the original Atari or Nintendo platforms.

It's only *kids* who think "gamer" has anything to do with a particular style of game or a particular demographic. Gamers are of all ages, genders, and races. But, hey, if you're convinced that "gamer" means pimply faced male playing first person shooter wargame on My Favourite Platform, knock yourself out. You're wrong, of course, but I've learned many years ago you can't convince people who "know they're right" of anything.

The typical portable device nowadays has far more CPU and graphics power than the 386's that ran the Doom series, never mind the original Atari or Nintendo platforms.

In video gaming, output isn't everything. For a real-time game, the input also has to be practical. How does the input of the typical portable device compare to that of said 8-bit game consoles? A touch screen is better for positional input (point-and-click) or an intermittent stream of deltas (like a trackball), but I was under the impression that a gamepad was still clearly superior for the sort of directional control used in (say) a platformer. I haven't seen any clip-on gamepads for Android in use near

Dude, you're missing the whole point. I'm not insulting people, I'm making fun of a business that was so foolish as to narrowly define their demographic instead of accepting the standard public-use definition of the term. Anyone who spends an inordinate amount of time playing games of any kind is a "gamer."

The term has been in use since before computer games were mainstream. Your local DnD league that runs 3 day sessions on the long weekends with only 4-5 hours of sleep a night are gamers. Your grand

In other words, the people who just published this "study" have just realized that women who play trivial games on their cell phones are a much larger (and probably more profitable) demographic than their old focus on teenaged boys playing first person shooters.

I have some games on my iPhone. There are a couple that I've spent a few dozen hours working my way through a few times, then put away. (e.g. "No, Human") There are a few I've played with a little, out of curiosity, but lost interest in. (e.g. "Super Monkey Ball") There are a couple more that I play once in a while when I'm bored and don't want to think. (e.g. "Trism")

Which doesn't make me a "gamer". The only console I've ever owned was an Atari, the last game I played on a screen larger than 3.5 inches

Most of these women (who play a bit of casual games) don't even WANT to be called gamers, so I don't understand the push to call them so.

It's just an oblique attack on men. They would like game companies to not only stop catering to teenage boys, but to actively exclude them in favor of catering to women. Of course, the game companies are not that stupid and realize that equivocating over the term "gamer" isn't going to change a thing.

It is, actually, and it's a subtle one. In the face of all evidence, the dogma of political correctness dictates that men and women are exactly the same and should want the same things. Therefore, using this twisted excuse for logic, anything that is done primarily by men must be portrayed as inherently sexist and actively excluding of women. That's what happens when masses of soft-minded people use low-quality logic on "sacred" conclusions they refuse to question.

The article summary is incoherent and wrong. The article clearly states that Male games make up 52% of the pie, not Females. Secondly, the given the total population of women over the age of 18 is vastly greater than the population of boys aged 18 and under, I have no idea what the point of comparing those two particular statistics is.

This summary is THE example of starting from a conclusion. It is clear that the submitter cares more about the narrative of "female gamers are dominating" then the actual facts of the situation.

Mental hurdle aside, the reality is that anyone who plays games, regardless of the platform, is a gamer.

Or, people who play video games are called "video game players", and the subgroup of people who make it a huge part of their lives are "gamers". Or some other definition. I don't know, I don't really care. If you want to generate page hits by making boys feel uncomfortable by playing mind games with a definition of an adjective they use to describe themselves, whatever. If "gamer" is going to be hijacked to mean something else now, then the community will use a different word.

For me, "gamer" has always carried the same connotation that "film buff" does: just as I wouldn't consider somebody who occasionally goes to the movies a "film buff", I wouldn't necessarily consider a person who occasionally plays games on their phone to be a "gamer".

At the end of the day, though, my litmus comes down to whether the person considers video games to be an important part of their life and their identity. For me, video games were my entire childhood, and are my primary hobby today. And even though my girlfriend never played the hardcore CRPG's and FPS's of my youth, playing Sonic, Kirby, and Nintendo GameCube with her little sister is an incredibly important part of her childhood and remains important to her in adulthood.

To me, that makes her a "gamer", regardless of whether she's played Baldur's Gate, Half-Life, and Ocarina of Time, or not.

Mental hurdle aside, the reality is that anyone who plays games, regardless of the platform, is a gamer.

Or, people who play video games are called "video game players", and the subgroup of people who make it a huge part of their lives are "gamers".

I can't speak of all women, but my mom spends an astonishing amount of time on her games (Candy Crush, Tiny Zoo, and now some farm simulator). She'll put them down to run errands or do chores, but not to have a conversation. She reminds me of me, 30 years ago and living in her basement.

The games women play may be different from the stereotypical teenage FPS, but they are every bit as engaging to their audience. "Gamers" has a definite connotation, though, and calling women obsessed with Candy Crush and F

You sound like you care more about it than I do, and are channeling your hatred of others onto me. I think if you had better reading comprehension you'd have a better understanding for what I was saying, since you completely missed my point.

Your sounding defensive and looking for hatred where I read only a statement of facts. Facts don't hate. Gamers are people who play games. Period. End of story. The phrase has never meant "teen aged boy."

It's not just "spend time", "gamer" also implies a certain amount of obsession. "Casual gamer" covers the gamut, but just "gamer" is between Casual and Hardcore. I would bet that most people, who others consider to be gamers, would also add that just spending time does not make one a gamer, but also the amount of zealously one has while playing their games.

As someone who has been playing games for nearly 30 years, I've seen that gaming has always included adult women playing casually, females under 18 playing ahrdcore, and men over 18 playing hardcore - though yes the number of hardcore men over 18 has grown, as has the number of hardcore women over 18 (since those hardcore females under 18 grew up just as the males did). What's changed is the definition of gamer.

The Entertainment Software Association should be reprehended for their poor methodology.Casual Gamers and Hardcore Gamers are two very different market segments, and grouping them together as Gamers is useless and disingenous.

They spent vastly different amounts of money. They want different things from their games. If you design a game for the average of the two, you will miss both.

My 51yo lady friend has 20K+ battles on WoT (desktop), I think that counts as a mature female gamer. For years she would not have anything to do with FPS games because of the blood and gore, but would play bridge online for hours, which I think also counts as a "gamer". I talked her into WoT because it's only tanks, not people, she was hooked for life in 30 minutes but still plays bridge every now and then.

TFA has some interesting stats, but not much narrative to go with them. I would say that there are two big over-arching themes that are driving changes behind "who plays games".

1) The first generation to grow up playing games is now moving into its 30s and even early 40s. Moreover, while this reflects my personal prejudices only (hey, at least I'm upfront about it), I suspect that with many of the first generation of gamers being academic and nerdy types, they are disproportionately well-paid now compared to their wider generation. So the people who grew up with games in the 1980s and early 1990s now have a lot of spending power. For some years now, the 30-40 year old age group has been the most lucrative in gaming.

This is partly why Japan's importance as a market for (as opposed to a producer of) games has plummeted. Aside from "quick blast on the train" mobile games, gaming in Japan is in a very unhealthy state. Domestic production in Japan, when it targets domestic audiences, increasingly plays for children (eg. Nintendo), teenagers (Capcom) or the unemployed/under-employed "otaku" demographic living off its parents' income (Gust, Nippon Ichi, Cave etc).

This is largely because Japan doesn't have the market of relatively well-paid adult gamers that the West has. Some of that is down to social stigma (games being a "kids' thing"), but much more of it is down to working cultures. Maintaining a middle-class lifestyle in Japan requires the kind of office-hours that would make even a Western games-development house in crunch-time blush.

So yeah... in the Western gaming market, oldies increasingly hold the purse-strings, while Japan is increasingly falling out of the mainstream.

2) There is no longer one single "games industry" any more. If... indeed... there ever was. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, the games industry split neatly into two halves marked "console" and "computer", with very little cross-over. These days, that distinction has almost vanished (most console games bar first-party exclusives come to PC, Valve increasingly act as the platform-curator for the PC). But at the same time, there is a growing divide between "core" and "casual" gaming, with the latter not looking much like traditional gaming at all.

Facebook games and mobile titles like Candy Crush Saga draw nothing but contempt from "core" gamers (including many of those affluent 30-40 year-olds mentioned above). But they have drawn in a vast market which would never touch a "core" game - and that market is heavily female. So the demographic of the gaming population in general is skewing to reflect that.

There's also what almost constitutes a third tier somewhere in the middle - the "dudebro" gamer (which is overwhelmingly, though not entirely, male). These are the guys who spend a lot of time gaming, but almost all of it goes into Madden/FIFA (delete as appropriate depending on whether in the US or not) and Call of Duty/Battlefield (delete as appropriate depending on favoured brand of spunkgargleweewee). This is a big demographic, but as MS learned when it pitched the Xbox One at them heavily, it isn't a big-spending demographic or one that's particularly sensitive to technological advances.

However, if you are only referring to "serious" gamers who invest hours of training to play a particular game, then specify that. Of course, most of the Candy Crush generation aren't doing that (they have a life for a start).

If you want gamer to distinguish between those who buy hardware for their PC to game properly, even that definition won't help you - I've had two people ask me about desktop PC's capable of playing The Sims 3 for their teenage daughters, and you need a decent graphics card for that.

What you want is to use "gamer" as some undefined term that meets your particular clique of game geek. It doesn't. It never has. To me a gamer is someone who was around in the 80's and will happily fight through 10-minute loading screens, unsuitable hardware, pump money into an arcade machine, for proper 8-bit graphics (not the fake-8-bit-retro OpenGL shite you get now) on a game that's almost, if not actually, fucking impossible to complete.

Sorry, guys, but most of you just aren't "gamers". I enjoy a TF2 jaunt as much as any of the other 800 games on my Steam account, that I've had before some of the gamer kids around now were even born. I've run CS servers from 1.6 to the current day. But I still sit and play Altitude like a demon.

Gamer is not a definition beyond "one who games". If you mean FPS player, say it If you mean professional-level twitch shooter, say it. If you mean someone who plays new titles on new hardware, say it. If you mean someone who plays lots of games, or for a long time, or spends lots of money, say it. If you mean someone the industry can sell games to, say it.

But "gamer" means nothing. My mother has completed every Mario game in existence (up to and including Wii U), used to play Horace Goes Skiing back in the 80's, broke four Palm Pilots playing Bookworm Deluxe so much, played Gin Rummy on our first DOS machine, and has caused more money to be spent on the gaming industry than the rest of her family combined. So the industry will target her. And get money from her. And she will buy stuff. To "ignore" her because she's not the stereotypical gamer playing whatever game is considered "real" at that moment would be insanity for the industry.

Maybe she won't join you in a 32-player CS:GO competitive tournament (though she did used to win at Turok quite a lot). But you can't say she's not a gamer any more than anyone else.

The definition of the word gamer in the summary is seriously lacking. There's a big difference between someone who spends fifteen minutes playing Solitaire, or Candy Crush, and someone else who's spending twenty hours a week raiding WoW. That said, for the companies who make the products, it's all about who they can pull the most Benjamins from.

And just back to the definition. I have a mother-in-law, so spends about 30min/week playing Solitare, and

No they don't. The chalange the understanding of statistics.The information given is useless. First statistics do not change definitions. If you have a definition of a gamer and the outcome is unexpected, you do not change the definition. You change your perspective.Secondly 'outnumber' in absolute numbers in a group that in itself outnumbers the other group and then make a conclusion is stoopid.Car example : The number of adult female Ford drivers vastly outnumbers the number of 18 year old Bugatti drivers.

So first you must turn the numbers into percentages. e.g. X% of teenage boys are gamers. Y% of adult females are gamers.Next you must clearly state WHAT a gamer is.Depending on that definition, you might also need to include frequency.

And again, even if the outcome is 99.9% of +65 old women are gamers, it does NOT change the definition of gamers. It might change your perspective of gamers, but not the definition.

"Mental hurdle aside, the reality is that anyone who plays games, regardless of the platform, is a gamer."

Maybe a teenage boy wrote this summary, because this sort of sophomoric pedantry would be part for the course for a teenager.

Yes, according to the literal meaning of the words, a "gamer" is someone who has ever played a game. In the vernacular, however, the commonly-accepted meaning is substantially narrower than that, implying someone who is an habitual player of video games, in this context, themsel

What I would call gamer is somebody which dedicate quite a sizable part of his life to play video game (whether you see that negatively or positively). If you reduce it "playing some video game sometime" you get a pretty vaccuous statistic where pretty much everybody is inside. It is equivalent to calling "gambler" anybody which made a bet of any sort (casual or not) at *ANY* point in 2014. Pretty much not what is named a gambler , and so that should not be used for gammer either.

I don't play WoW any more, World of Warcraft, but when I did, I was fully serious about it. I might spend 18 hours a day at it. I ran guilds myself and was a key member of others. And this apparently surprises people but, some of the core guildmembers were grandmothers. Grandmothers are people you really, really want in a guild. They're giving and forgiving and they can really kick ass. They've got more sense than the rest of your raid team combined and they're totally dedicated. Possibly until their grandc

I once interviewed for a job in Boston. They said they'd pay my plane trip and rental car and that they were a video gaming company. I take the trip out there, find out they do slot machines and then they didn't pay my car or plane fee.

Why would you compare women over 18 to men under 18 and think that means anything? You would have to know the relative size of the populations simply sliced by age to know what you would expect, and then determine if the gender variable makes any difference

My mother is in retirement. She has owned and completed basically every Nintendo console and Mario game in existence (there's probably some obscure Japanese title somewhere, but if you've heard of it, and it has Mario, she's completed it).

We buy her the console for Christmas, we buy her the games when she completes them. It's an expensive outlay all round, given her gaming abilities. She's had more spent on her than my brother and I (old-school "gamers" from the ZX Spectrum era through

The industry won't cater to female gamers until there's a value parity between different demographics.

On the contrary, the industry already is catering to female 'gamers'. It's just that the industry isn't going to stop catering to male 'gamers' as well. And the industry (or industries), unlike the summary writer and some of the more disingenuous commenters, realize that despite that both consist of people who play video games, there are significant differences between the markets.

Mobile gaming is progressing, and encroaching into the PC game turf, due to the better bluetooth enabled controllers that are available today, plus the increased sophistication of the games being created for mobile devices. PC gaming may have seen it's time in the Sun. A new generation is maturing, and it is a 'mobile' one.

Or game turf is expanding beyond its historical parameters and part of that new growth are filthy casuals beyond anything we could imagine, playing on 2 inch screens with a thumb controller like it`s nineteen eighty-four.The PC master-race will endure for a thousand years! Win Health!

Mobile gaming is progressing, and encroaching into the PC game turf, due to the better bluetooth enabled controllers that are available today

Say a mobile game developer is deciding whether or not to port a game to a mobile platform. Where are published sales figures for Bluetooth game controllers designed for Android or iOS? The only anecdote I'm aware of is that I've nver seen a mobile gamer use a Bluetooth gamepad in public.